Now showing 1 - 10 of 17
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Evaluation of acetic acid and ethanol concentration in a rice vinegar internal venturi injector bioreactor using Fourier transform near infrared spectroscopy
    (2019-12-01) ; ; ;
    Shrestha, Bim
    ;
    Krusong, Warawut
    In the process of fermenting rice vinegar, the concentration of acetic acid and ethanol concentration must be measured for monitoring of the total concentration. Near infrared spectroscopy has been used to rapidly monitor the concentration of acetic acid and ethanol concentration daily during 10 cycles of the fermentation process. The model was developed using partial least squares regression. For predicting concentration of acetic acid with near infrared spectroscopy, the coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), root mean square error of calibration, root mean square error of cross validation, ratio of standard error of validation to standard deviation, and bias was 0.96, 2.30 g L<sup>−1</sup>, 2.44 g L<sup>−1</sup>, 1.11 g L<sup>−1</sup>, and 5.56, respectively. For ethanol concentration, the value of R<sup>2</sup>, root mean square error of calibration, root mean square error of cross validation, bias and ratio of prediction to deviation were predicted to be 0.94, 3.15 g L<sup>−1</sup>, 2.73 g L<sup>−1</sup>, −0.40 g L<sup>−1</sup>, and 4.04, respectively. However, both models provided fair performance when tested with an external set of samples, indicating that the models could be applied for rough screening.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Classification of the Crosslink Density Level of Para Rubber Thick Film of Medical Glove by Using Near-Infrared Spectral Data
    (2024-01-01) ;
    Howimanporn, Suppakit
    ;
    Sitorus, Agustami
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    Classification of the crosslink density level of para rubber medical gloves by using near-infrared spectral data combined with machine learning is the first time reported in this paper. The spectra of medical glove samples with different crosslink densities acquired by an ultra-compact portable MicroNIR spectrometer were correlated with their crosslink density levels, which were referencely evaluated by the toluene swell index (TSI). The machine learning protocols used to classify the 3 groups of TSI were specified as less than 80% TSI, 80–88% TSI, and more than 88% TSI. The 80–88% TSI group was the group in which the compounded latex was suitable for medical glove production, which made the glove specification comply with the requirements of customers as indicated by the tensile test. The results show that when comparing the algorithms used for modeling, the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) developed by 2nd derivative spectra with 15 k-best selected wavelengths fairly accurately predicted the class but was most reliable among other algorithms, i.e., artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), and k-nearest neighbors (kNN), due to higher prediction accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score of the same value of 0.76 and no overfitting or underfitting prediction. This developed model can be implemented in the glove factory for screening purposes in the production line. However, deep learning modeling should be explored with a larger sample number required for better model performance.
      1
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Non-Destructive Quality Evaluation of Tropical Fruit (Mango and Mangosteen) Purée Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Combined with Partial Least Squares Regression
    (2022-12-01) ;
    Sharma, Sneha
    ;
    ;
    Srisawat, Kraisuwit
    ;
    Inta, Wasan
    Mango and mangosteen are commercially important tropical fruits with a short shelf life. Fruit processing is one of the alternatives to extend the shelf life of these fruits. Purée is one of the processed products of fresh fruit. In this research, the quality of mango and mangosteen purée was analyzed. Titratable acidity (TA) and total soluble solids (TSS) were predicted using non-destructive near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. A partial least squares regression (PLSR) model was developed based on the NIR spectra with a wavelength ranging from 800 to 2500 nm. The PLSR model returned a coefficient of determination (r<sup>2</sup>) and a ratio of prediction to deviation (RPD) of 0.955 and 4.7 for TSS, and 0.784 and 2.2 for TA, in the mango purée. Similarly, the best model was selected for the TSS prediction in the mangosteen purée through PLSR, with an r<sup>2</sup>, a root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSECV), and RPD of 0.799, 0.3% malic acid, and 2.2, respectively. The results show the possible application of NIR spectroscopy in the product processing line, although a larger number of samples with wide variation in future studies are needed as an input to update the model, in order to obtain a more robust model.
      1
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Rapid measurement of classification levels of primary macronutrients in durian (Durio zibethinus Murray CV. Mon Thong) leaves using FT-NIR spectrometer and comparing the effect of imbalanced and balanced data for modelling
    (2022-11-15) ;
    Jaisue, Natthapon
    ;
    Worphet, Akarawhat
    ;
    Tawinteung, Nukoon
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    For durian growth to produce high-quality fruit, plants should receive sufficient nutrients. Currently, farmers apply various fertilisers to produce a large quantity and quality of durian fruit, irrespective of the actual nutrients that the plant requires. Accordingly, the production cost is high and non-renewable resources. Therefore, this study focused on rapid classification primary macronutrient levels in durian (Durio zibethinus Murray CV. Mon Thong) leaves using Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy and investigated the effect of imbalanced data on efficient classification models. Contents of N, P, and K in durian leaves were measured via NIR with the wavelength range of 800–2,500 nm. Classification models were developed using partial least squares, k-nearest neighbour, and artificial neural networks (ANNs) with imbalanced and balanced data. The imbalanced data were balanced using a synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE). In this study, the model regarding the fresh leaf sample performed better than that for the dried ground leaf sample. Moreover, the ANN was the best algorithm, exhibiting validation accuracies of classified levels corresponding to N = 0.99 and P = 0.97 when the data were analysed with SMOTE and K = 1.00 from the original balanced data. The imbalanced data affected biased classification when the models could increase the classification accuracy by applying balanced data for modelling.
      1
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Author Correction: Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy (Scientific Reports, (2025), 15, 1, (33725), 10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z)
    (2026-12-01)
    Gyawali, Prakash
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    ;
    Correction to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z, published online 30 September 2025 The original version of this Article contained errors. In the original version of this article, the climate-carbon effect value was not included as introduced in AR6. As a result, in the Materials and methods section, under the subheading ‘Estimation of global warming potential and emission of greenhouse gas (GHG)’, where: “Step 1: (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Carbon emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) Step 2: Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) +(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) +(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” now reads: “Step 1: GHG (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Specific GHG emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) Step 2: Total GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” In addition, under the subheading ‘Model development and validation’, where: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The spectral data were pretreated using raw spectra, standard normal variate (SNV), as well as first derivative and second derivative transformations. The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for corrects scatter effects and baseline variations<sup>35</sup>,” now reads: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for correcting scatter effects and baseline variations<sup>35</sup>,” In addition, Equations 3, 4 and 6 contained typesetting errors. As a result, Equation 3: (Formula presented.) now reads, (Formula presented.) Equation 4: (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) And Equation 6 (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) Furthermore, under the Results section, subheading ‘Predicting performance of biomass GWP using PLSR’, where: “The model developed with CM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave best performance with R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> was 0.87 (Table 4).” now reads: “The model developed with COVM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave the best performance with R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> was 0.85 (Table 4).” Under the subheading ‘Prediction result of HHV using PLSR’, where: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> of 0.87)” now reads: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> of 0.86)” Under the subheading ‘Regression coefficient and x-loading of GWP model’, where: “Prominent peaks were identified and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7 and the vibration indicated by Workman and Weyer<sup>38</sup> at the wavenumbers in bold were not found or not related to biomass.” now reads: “Prominent peaks were identified, and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7, which was indicated by Workman and Weyer<sup>38</sup>.” Equation 8: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (29.8×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (29.8×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 894.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total = 2098.0 (HHV, TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002098 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002098 Jg<sup>-1</sup> now reads: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (27.2×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (27.2×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 816.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = 2020.0 (HHV, TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002020 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002020 J g<sup>-1</sup> Moreover, Tables 1 and 3 have been corrected. Incorrect Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-3</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 0.017932 TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 ×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions)+(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions)+(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP =1×2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup>+29.8× 5.379 ×10<sup>-4</sup>+273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP=0.0376 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Correct Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083 × 10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ<sup>-1</sup> The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP = 1×2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup>+ 27.2× 5.3796 × 10<sup>-4</sup>+ 273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP= 0.03622 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Incorrect Table 3: Calibration set Prediction set Parameter Method NT NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g<sup>-1</sup>) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 16976 910 50 17950 15268 17051 787 Correct Table 3: Parameter Method NT Calibration Set Prediction Set NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g<sup>-1</sup>) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 15268 910 50 17950 16976 17051 787 Finally, the legends of Tables 4 and 7 have been updated: “Table 4: Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable. Significant values are in [bold].” now reads: “Table 4. Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable important projection, FstDev: 1<sup>st</sup> derivative, SecDev: 2<sup>nd</sup> derivative. Significant values are in [bold].” “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. *1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4th overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 1, symmetric stretching vibration; 2, bending vibration; 3, asymmetric stretching vibration; and + is combination. now reads: “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. 1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4<sup>th</sup> overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; and + is combination.” The original version of this Article has been corrected.
      2
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Precision test for scanning of soil in durian orchard using near-infrared spectroscopy
    Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is a rapid technique for non destructive testing. Durian is popular fruit in Thailand. Growing durian is not easy. It needs to provide proper nutrients. Therefore, this paper aims to test the repeatability and reproducibility of NIR scanning before conducting the feasibility test of creating the equation to predict the N P K value in the soil for the durian trees. Results showed that the repeatability of FT-NIR spectrometer and Micro-NIR spectrometer for fresh soil were 0.064 and 0.075, respectively and for soil powder, they were 0.039 and 0.048, respectively. The reproducibility of FT-NIR spectrometer and Micro-NIR spectrometer for fresh soil were 0.048 and 0.051, respectively and for soil powder were 0.051 and 0.046, respectively.
      1
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Modeling Textural Properties of Cooked Germinated Brown Rice Using the near-Infrared Spectra of Whole Grain
    (2023-12-01)
    Kaewsorn, Kannapot
    ;
    ;
    Maichoon, Pisut
    ;
    Pokhrel, Dharma Raj
    ;
    If a non-destructive and rapid technique to determine the textural properties of cooked germinated brown rice (GBR) was developed, it would hold immense potential for the enhancement of the quality control process in large-scale commercial rice production. We combined the Fourier transform near-infrared (NIR) spectral data of uncooked whole grain GBR with partial least squares (PLS) regression and an artificial neural network (ANN) for an evaluation of the textural properties of cooked germinated brown rice (GBR); in addition, data separation and spectral pretreatment methods were investigated. The ANN was outperformed in the evaluation of hardness by a back extrusion test of cooked GBR using the smoothing combined with the standard normal variate pretreated NIR spectra of 188 whole grain samples in the range of 4000–12,500 cm<sup>−1</sup>. The calibration sample set was separated from the prediction set by the Kennard–Stone method. The best ANN model for hardness, toughness, and adhesiveness provided R<sup>2</sup>, r<sup>2</sup>, RMSEC, RMSEP, Bias, and RPD values of 1.00, 0.94, 0.10 N, 0.77 N, 0.02 N, and 4.3; 1.00, 0.92, 1.40 Nmm, 9.98 Nmm, 1.6 Nmm, and 3.5; and 0.97, 0.91, 1.35 Nmm, 2.63 Nmm, −0.08 Nmm, and 3.4, respectively. The PLS regression of the 64-sample KDML GBR group and the 64-sample GBR group of various varieties provided the optimized models for the hardness of the former and the toughness of the latter. The hardness model was developed by using 5446.3–7506 and 4242.9–4605.4 cm<sup>−1</sup>, which included the amylose vibration band at 6834.0 cm<sup>−1</sup>, while the toughness model was from 6094.3 to 9403.8 cm<sup>−1</sup> and included the 6834.0 and 8316.0 cm<sup>−1</sup> vibration bands of amylose, which influenced the texture of the cooked rice. The PLS regression models for hardness and toughness had the r<sup>2</sup> values of 0.85 and 0.82 and the RPDs of 2.9 and 2.4, respectively. The ANN model for the hardness, toughness, and adhesiveness of cooked GBR could be implemented for practical use in GBR production factories for product formulation and quality assurance and for further updating using more samples and several brands to obtain the robust models.
      1
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Investigation of physiological disorder classification in mangosteen fruit using visible and shortwave near-infrared spectroscopy combined with machine learning
    (2025-12-01)
    Ruttanadech, Nuttapong
    ;
    Momin, Abdul
    ;
    ; ;
    Thongphut, Chitwadee
    Accurate classification of physiological disorders in mangosteen fruit is crucial for ensuring production quality, safety, sustainability, and economic viability. This study investigates the application of visible and shortwave near-infrared (Vis/SWNIR) reflectance spectroscopy, combined with machine learning algorithms, to classify three primary disorders: normal fruit (NF), translucent flesh disorder (TFD), and TFD with yellow gummy latex (TFD & YGL). The study specifically examines the effects of light intensity, spectral pretreatments, and machine learning models on classification performance. Spectral data were collected using two light intensities (50 % and 100 % of a 150 W light source) and processed with three pretreatments: standard normal variate (SNV), second derivative Savitzky-Golay (SGD2), and a combination of SNV and SGD2. Random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and multi-layer perceptron (MLP) algorithms were used for classification. The SGD2 method improved differentiation, especially for the TFD & YGL class, in the 700–725 nm wavelength range, which is associated with xanthone content in the fruit's pericarp. Higher light intensity (100 %) significantly improved classification accuracy, achieving an overall accuracy of 0.71 and an average F1 score of 0.61 with the RF model. Despite these improvements, the model struggled to distinguish the TFD class from NF due to their similar spectral profiles. Overall, the Vis/SWNIR spectroscopy and machine learning combination shows strong potential for the non-destructive classification of mangosteen fruit disorders. Both light intensity and spectral pretreatments play critical roles in enhancing performance. Future studies should focus on improving spectral sensitivity to better capture internal fruit characteristics.
      3
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of the Pomelo Peel Essential Oils at Different Storage Durations Using a Visible and Near-Infrared Spectroscopic on Intact Fruit
    (2024-08-01) ;
    Duangchang, Jittra
    ;
    ; ;
    Shrestha, Bim Prasad
    Pomelo fruit pulp mainly is consumed fresh and with very little processing, and its peels are discarded as biological waste, which can cause the environmental problems. The peels contain several bioactive chemical compounds, especially essential oils (EOs). The content of a specific EO is important for the extraction process in industry and in research units such as breeding research. The explanation of the biosynthesis pathway for EO generation and change was included. The chemical bond vibration affected the prediction of EO constituents was comprehensively explained by regression coefficient plots and x-loading plots. Visible and near-infrared spectroscopy (VIS/NIRS) is a prominent rapid technique used for fruit quality assessment. This research work was focused on evaluating the use of VIS/NIRS to predict the composition of EOs found in the peel of the pomelo fruit (Citrus maxima (J. Burm.) Merr. cv Kao Nam Pueng) following storage. The composition of the peel oil was analyzed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) at storage durations of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105 and 120 days (at 10 °C and 70% relative humidity). The relationship between the NIR spectral data and the major EO components found in the peel, including nootkatone, geranial, β-phellandrene and limonene, were established using the raw spectral data in conjunction with partial least squares (PLS) regression. Preprocessing of the raw spectra was performed using multiplicative scatter correction (MSC) or second derivative preprocessing. The PLS model of nootkatone with full MSC had the highest correlation coefficient between the predicted and reference values (r = 0.82), with a standard error of prediction (SEP) of 0.11% and bias of 0.01%, while the models of geranial, β-phellandrene and limonene provided too low r values of 0.75, 0.75 and 0.67, respectively. The nootkatone model is only appropriate for use in screening and some other approximate calibrations, though this is the first report of the use of NIR spectroscopy on intact fruit measurement for its peel EO constituents during cold storage.
      1
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Huanglongbing (HLB) disease detection using drone imagery and deep learning neural networks for early management of HLB
    (2026-08-01)
    Kalbande, Vishal Dashrathrao
    ;
    ; ;
    Sripinyowanich Jongyingcharoen, Jiraporn
    ;
    In the modern world, machine learning and artificial intelligence have become the foundation of the digital revolution and have a significant role in daily life. It is adopted in various applications, such as object detection, recognition and classification. This research aimed to use deep learning algorithms for the detection of Huanglongbing (HLB)-infected disease, healthy and background patch in citrus orchard. HLB-infected patches need to be identified for appropriate treatments of spraying. However, farmers are unaware of infections on plant leaves and therefore adopt manual disease identification methods. This method results in loss of productivity as the infection spreads throughout the field. However, due to a lack of required facilities, instant identification needs to be improved in many aspects of the agricultural sector. To conduct this research, firstly, a dataset was created that contained drone images of citrus orchards that was categorized into three classes, specifically (i) Healthy, (ii) HLB-infected and (iii) Background. Under this research, 6000 image patches of citrus orchard were collected and categorized 2000 images in each class based on appropriate labels. The next step was to train the deep learning models to identify Healthy, HLB-infected and Background. In this research three models viz. EfficientNetV2B0, DenseNet-121 and ResNet-50 were trained to detect the HLB infection patch in the citrus orchard. The models exhibited exceptional performance, with ResNet-50 achieving the highest overall accuracy of 89%, followed by EfficientNet-V2B0 (87%) and DenseNet-121 (85%). ResNet-50 demonstrated superior balanced performance with macro-average precision of 90%, recall of 89%, and F1-score of 89%. The generated HLB detection map effectively visualized disease distribution patterns, identifying 31% of patches as HLB-infected, 7% as Healthy and 62% as Background across the orchard grid. This research establishes a reliable framework for large-scale, automated citrus disease monitoring that enables precision agriculture interventions, potentially reducing economic losses and optimizing resource allocation in citrus cultivation through early and accurate HLB disease detection.
      2